academic-program-assessment-policies-and-procedures

The Continuous Improvement Blueprint CIB is similar to our previous Assessment Report in that it provides a structure for academic programs to report their student learning outcomes and

Continuous Improvement Blueprint

The University of South Carolina Upstate seeks to provide support and leadership for ongoing continuous improvement through academic program assessment The Continuous Improvement Blueprint (formerly known as the “Assessment Report”) is integral to providing rigorous, career relevant, and accessible education to the Upstate of South Carolina community and beyond —

which is the first of three strategic priorities for the university Strategic Plan, Up Together

The Continuous Improvement Blueprint (CIB) is similar to our previous Assessment Report in that it provides a structure for academic programs to report their student learning outcomes and the degree to which students are meeting the outcomes Where this process differs is its focus on alignment with the overall institutional strategic plan, the centering of continuous improvement, and the documentation of resource needs in order to assist programs in meeting the student learning outcomes

The CIB is submitted annually on October 1 The CIB will contain all of the following

components: Student Learning Outcomes, Methods, Criteria, Results, Interpretation of Results, Action Steps for Improvement, and Resources Needed for Improvement Each program will maintain a current curriculum map on file with the institution; however, this will not be required annually with the overall CIB

Designated Faculty Assessment Coordinators will create the CIB with support from their

colleges and the Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Compliance Faculty Assessment Coordinators will submit each program’s CIB to the Assessment Committee for guidance and feedback After CIBs are submitted to the Assessment Committee for initial review, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Compliance will review CIBs and provide additional constructive comments and suggestions to help programs continuously improve

The Faculty Assessment Coordinators will receive support and professional development from the Center for Academic Innovation and Faculty Support, Director of Planning and Research and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Compliance Together, the aforementioned offices will help Faculty Assessment Coordinators create the documents, gain access to relevant data, and learn about assessment best practice As part of this support, each program will receive specific data related to enrollment, retention, graduation rates, NACE competencies, advising and post-graduation placement These data will help programs with their CIBs as it relates to

Academic Program Assessment Policies and Procedures

While the primary focus of the CIB is program level continuous improvement, it also partially fulfills requirements for our accrediting body — The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) The CIB addresses Sections 7.1, 7.3, and 8.2 For more information, please visit the SACSCOC Resource Manual for The Principles of

Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement

Continuous Improvement Blueprint

1 Student Learning Outcomes

a Provide a description of a specific skills, attitudes/dispositions, or knowledge that students or graduates should possess

b Student learning outcomes should be measurable

2 Methods

a Assessments that allow students to demonstrate their skills, knowledge and

attitudes/dispositions either directly or indirectly

3 Criteria

a Expected level of achievement for the specific measure

b Expected level of achievement should be chosen with intent and based upon previous achievement levels

4 Results

a Data collected that indicates – either directly or indirectly—the degree to which a particular student learning outcome has been demonstrated based on identified methods

5 Interpretation of Results

a Discuss the meaning of the results in relation to the outcome Consider the

following:

i What the results reveal about the program’s strengths and opportunities;

ii What aspects of the curriculum remained the same and the evidence or data available that indicate the status quo is successful;

iii What were the achievements and challenges in your efforts toward continuous improvement;

iv What results reveal about the strengths and opportunities of past years action steps as it relates to students achieving learning outcomes; and

6 Action Steps for Improvement

a Describe the changes, updates, or adjustments that were made to the program, department, or college to help students meet the desired outcome based on the results

b Explain the specific action steps you plan to do in the future based on your results

c Action steps can address more than one outcome

7 Resources Needed for Improvement

a Resources (fiscal, professional development, lab supplies, space) that the program needs to improve student outcomes or maintain existing high levels of

achievement

b Resources needed can address more than one outcome

Academic Program Assessment Policies and Procedures

Support Structure Faculty Assessment Coordinators are individuals within each college that author the CIB for

one (or more) programs In addition to completing the CIB, the Faculty Assessment Coordinators are the point of contact for the Assessment Committee, and Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Compliance Faculty Assessment Coordinators are allowed to serve on a recurring annual basis, attend an annual assessment retreat, and are identified by program and college leadership (Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, program Chairs) Faculty Assessment Coordinators can also serve on the assessment committee

The Assessment Committee (AC) is charged with providing assessment leadership, oversight,

and guidance for the academic programs

Principal responsibility for successful program assessment, as for curriculum and instruction, rests with the faculty within the discipline Upon request of the academic unit, the committee provides technical support in the measurement of unit-determined goal outcomes, the measurement of improvement, and the interpretation of assessment results The Assessment Committee is responsible for developing campus-wide awareness and understanding of outcomes assessment, developing a systematic process for collecting and maintaining unit assessment plans, and providing guidance to departments and programs

on the assessment requirements of external agencies (USC Upstate Faculty Manual) The committee consists of trained assessment faculty who provide assessment leadership for all programs One assessment committee member and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Compliance will review each CIB

The Center for Academic Innovation and Faculty Support will provide ongoing professional

development to help meet the needs and interests of faculty related to a continuous improvement, assessment best practice, and innovative pedagogical practices This support will be in the form

of one-on-one assistance, professional development trainings, courses, and institutes

The Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Compliance (IEC) provides support to the

Assessment Committee and Faculty Assessment Coordinators This support includes one-on-one consultations as well as ongoing professional development trainings through the Center for Academic Innovation and Faculty Support Additionally, the IEC will provide administrative support to the Assessment Committee and review CIBs

The Director of Research and Planning provides appropriate and relevant data to the programs,

Faculty Assessment Coordinators, and the IEC to support the CIB process When needed, the Director of Research and Planning can provide one-on-one consultations with programs to help identify existing data sources and potential analyses for decision-making

Appendix A Note: The Assessment Committee members utilize this rubric to assist programs as they focus on the process of assessment and using best practice to create continuous

improvement

Student Learning

Outcome (SLO) 100% of SLOs: • Specific (indicating skill, knowledge, or

attitude that students should achieve)

• Measurable (able to be aligned with at least one direct or indirect measure)

• Achievable

75% of SLOs:

• Specific to outcome (indicating skill, knowledge, or attitude that students should achieve)

• Measurable (able to be aligned with at least one direct or indirect measure)

• Achievable

50% of SLOs:

• Not specific to outcome (indicating skill, knowledge, or attitude that students should achieve)

• Not measurable (able to be aligned with at least one direct or indirect measure)

OR

• Not achievable

• More than 50% of SLOs are either not specific (indicating skill, knowledge, or attitude that students should achieve)

OR

• SLOs are unmeasurable as written

Methods 100% of methods:

• Align with specific SLOs and are clearly a direct or indirect indication of the associated SLO

• Specific questions on quizzes and/or tests are identified if indicated as the measure If a project or essay is indicated as the measure, a rubric is referenced and included

75% methods:

• Align with specific SLOs and are clearly a direct or indirect indication of the associated SLO

50% of methods:

• State alignment

• The direct or indirect indication to a specific SLO is not immediately clear

• There is not a clear indication of direct or indirect measure of any SLO

Criteria 100% of criteria:

• Clearly aligned with a specific measure

• Explicitly states the expected level of achievement

and the percentage of students expected to reach level of achievement

75% of criteria:

• Clearly aligned with a specific measure

• Explicitly states the expected level of achievement

50% of criteria:

• Clearly aligned with a specific measure

• Explicitly states the expected level

of achievement

• Less than 50% of criteria are clearly aligned with specific measures and do not explicitly state level of expected achievement

OR

• Criteria not present

Academic Program Assessment Policies and Procedures

Results • Data is present for each SLO and stated

method

• All data are presented in a manner that clearly articulates which SLO and method it

is associated with and reported in terms of the previously stated criteria

• States whether SLOs were met

• Trend and/or relevant subgroup data

is included

• 75% of data are presented in a manner that clearly articulates which SLO and method it is associated with and reported in terms of the previously stated criteria

• 50% of data are presented in a manner that clearly articulates which SLO and method it is associated; however, the reader has

to assume which results are associated with specific methods and SLOs for some results

• Data this not available is explained

• Results are either not present (in a program for which there should be results) or indecipherable in terms

of what data is associated with which method and SLO

OR

• Data that is not available is not explained

Interpretation of

Results • Interpretations are available for each

method/result presented in the CIB

• The interpretations fully addresses each area

of CIB policies and procedures (5a) with clarity and specificity that clearly aligns with the SLOs, methods and results

• Interpretations are available for

at least 75% of methods/results presented in the CIB

• The interpretations addresses most areas of CIB policies and procedures (5a)

• Interpretations are available for 50% of methods/results presented

in the CIB

• The interpretation addresses some areas of CIB policies and

procedures (5a), but leaves the reader to make inferences regarding the results

• Interpretations are insufficient in that it does not address 5a meaningfully and fully

OR

• No interpretation included in the CIB

Action Steps for

Improvement • Action steps for the upcoming academic year

clearly align with the results presented in the CIB and specifically describe all the

changes, updates or adjustments that will be made to help students meet learning

outcomes

• Action steps for improvement clearly align with the results

and generally describe

changes, updates or adjustments will be made in the upcoming year

• The action steps for the upcoming academic year provided do not

clearly align with results presented

in the CIB and generally describe

changes, updates or adjustments will be made in the upcoming year

• There are no actions steps provided

OR

• The action steps for the upcoming academic year provided do not align with results presented in the CIB and do not describe changes, updates, or adjustments

Resources Needed

for Improvement • Stated resources – fiscal, professional, and

physical – clearly align with the stated actions steps for improvement and interpretation of results

• Resources specifically address how the continuation of existing resources AND the request for new resources will contribute to improved student learning outcomes

• Clearly states when no additional or current resources are needed

• Stated resources – fiscal, professional, and physical – clearly align with the stated actions steps for improvement and interpretation of results

• Stated resources – fiscal, professional, and physical – do not clearly align with the stated actions steps for improvement and

interpretation of results

• The reader has to make the connection or assume the connection is there between resources and action steps for improvement and interpretation of results

• No resources are provided and does not clearly state that there are no additional or current resources needed

OR

• Stated resources do not clearly align with the interpretation of results and stated action steps for improvement

Academic Program Assessment Policies and Procedures

Appendix B Note: Assessment Committee members will utilize the Constructive Comments form to provide

feedback to Faculty Assessment Coordinators regarding ways to improve their assessment

processes

Constructive Comments

Constructive comments are intended to detail the processes outlined within the CIB that are exceptionally well executed and suggestions for how to improve assessment processes in the future

Category Constructive Comments

Student Learning

Outcomes

Methods

Criteria

Results

Interpretation of

Results

Action Steps for

Improvement

Resources

Needed for

Improvement

Academic Program Assessment Policies and Procedures

Appendix C*

Continuous Improvement Blueprint for Academic Programs

Continuous Improvement Blueprint Report

Student Learning Outcome:

Methods &

Criteria

Results

Interpretation

of Results

Action Steps

for

Improvement

Resources

Needed for

Improvement

*Copy and paste the table as many times as necessary for each SLO